by Gabrielle Carr | Jun 13, 2024 | Blog
The high cost of train travel gives gas guzzling flights an unfair advantage.
Rail is the most electrified mode of transport in Europe and accounts for less than 1% of EU transport emissions. It’s nearly five times less emissions-intensive than air travel (on average), which has contributed to an estimated 4% of global warming worldwide. For the more than 60% of Europeans who support a ban on short-distance flights, rail transport is the obvious transport choice.
But while three in four Europeans are willing to pay a premium for ‘sustainable products’, choosing the train costs travellers on average double the price of flying internationally in Europe. For some routes, it’s 30 times more.
So why are trains so expensive? Or, rather, how are flights so cheap?
Budget airlines infamously use an array of loopholes to squash costs, such as flying into cheaper airports, headquartering in countries with low corporate tax, and minimising the number of staff per flight.[1] And the entire EU aviation industry — budget and luxury airlines included — benefits from billions in government support each year, enabling artificially low prices industry-wide.
In 2022, EU governments lost out on an estimated €34 billion in tax exemptions to the industry. Airlines pay reduced or no flight ticket tax or VAT, and zero tax on kerosene (a fossil fuel used to power planes), despite contributing to nearly 4% of EU CO2 emissions. Governments are also financing other schemes that benefit airlines — for example, the Dutch government pays farmers near Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport €853 per hectare each year to plough their land right after harvest, to avoid birds searching for food from colliding with planes. Meanwhile, EU railways and train operators pay energy taxes, VAT and high rail tolls in most countries.
Reducing the aviation tax gap will help train ticket prices compete. But the railway industry faces other challenges too.
Europe’s cross-border train system is disjointed. A lack of technical standardisation means countries use different trains, tracks and signalling systems, making crossing borders by train a logistical nightmare. Train scheduling and ticketing systems also vary across countries, making it complicated for passengers to book international train trips the way they would flights.
Railways are operated by national companies which make the vast majority of their profits via domestic travel, so there is little incentive to invest in fixing the cross-border conundrum. National operators understandably buy trains best suited to their country’s railroads, but this forces those travelling internationally to pay more and often switch trains at the border. The result of all this is an ‘ineffective patchwork of national lines,’ according to the executive director of the European Railway Agency.
Despite Europe continuing to fund carbon-intensive aviation, rail is starting to get more attention.
In 2023 the EU announced €6.2 billion in grants for more sustainable and efficient transport infrastructure initiatives, including cross-border rail projects. It has also set targets to double highspeed rail traffic by 2030 and triple it by 2050 (compared to 2015), as part of the EU Green Deal’s aim to cut transport-related emissions by 90% by 2050.
At a national level, France is leading the charge with concrete action. In 2023, it banned flights shorter than 2.5 hoursand announced its plan to finance €100 million of railway investment by increasing flight ticket tax.
Europe’s trains are on the right track. But we need to see more aggressive action from governments — taking inspiration from France — to make train travel the obvious choice from both an environmental and cost perspective.
[1] This Greenpeace report shares a fuller list of budget airlines’ shortcuts.
by Marielena Herbst de Cortina | Jun 10, 2024 | Blog
Even if we entirely stopped burning fossil fuels today, emissions from our “business as usual” food system would push average global temperature rise over 1.5°C by 2100. However, a recent study projected that we have a chance of staying below the 2°C threshold—and maybe even below the 1.5°C threshold—if we globally mitigate impacts from production methods, diet, and food waste. In my three-part series on our food system, I dive into each of these mitigation areas—from farm to table to trash.
Farm
Food production alone accounts for 26% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.To simply produce less food is not an option—the global population is expected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100. Expanding agricultural lands is not a viable solution either. Not only is land a limited resource—around 40% of the planet’s surfaceand 50% of its habitable land are dedicated to agriculture already—but also land clearing is one of the most significant sources of agricultural emissions. With these challenges in mind, decarbonizing our agricultural system will require technological and human solutions. I’ll focus on two opportunities to reduce impact by combining scientific advancement and operational shifts.
Solution #1 Change our production processes to use agricultural inputs more efficiently
There are currently large discrepancies between potential and actual crop yields, called “yield gaps.” Global food production could more than double if we closed yields gap by 75% to 90%. Crop yields increase through improved farming methods that work synergistically with the natural environment, or “agroecological practices.” Planting nitrogen-fixing crops during fallow periods, rotating crops rather than practicing monoculture, and employing integrated pest management—where pesticides are applied sparingly and in addition to mechanical pest control methods—have been shown to increase crop yields.
Solution #2: Optimize fertilizer application
Applying fertilizer consciously when plants most demand nutrients reduces use without negatively impacting yields. Fertilizer production is one of the most GHG intensive elements of farming, and its application is spatially and temporally mismanaged. Fertilizers are under used in many economically developing nations where they are difficult or expensive to procure and overused in other parts of the world. Increasing access in underserved regions, particularly to lower-impact fertilizers, could go far in closing yield gaps. At the same time, producing more food in a given area through the responsible use of fertilizers decreases the need for further land clearing and thus avoids the climate impacts associated with land use change.
It will take a concerted global effort and widespread adoption of improved farming methods to capture the potential benefits of these solutions. Like so many societal issues, reducing our agricultural carbon footprint will involve breaking down systemic barriers. But if you’re not a farmer or a policymaker, how can you make a difference? In my next blog, I’ll cover dietary climate impact and how we can mitigate our individual footprints.
by Pippa Greenwood | Jun 4, 2024 | Blog
Global wildlife populations have plunged by nearly 70% since 1970. More than 44,000 species are currently threatened with extinction, with 41% of amphibians and 37% of sharks and rays on the brink of collapse. Overdeveloped land and overfishing, exploitation of natural resources, climate change, pollution and the spread of invasive species are the five main drivers of this loss.
Biodiversity isn’t just necessary for healthy ecosystems; it’s essential for economic growth. Nature degradation could cause a 12% loss to UK GDP in coming years, according to the Green Finance Institute — a larger hit to UK GDP than the 2008 financial crisis or Covid-19. Companies are dependent on nature and the services it provides, from crop pollination and raw materials to flood protection and carbon sequestration. These services are crucial to an organisation’s productivity and resilience. Yet companies (and economies) still freeride on nature’s benefits and are failing to integrate nature’s value into our current economic system.
That is until recently. New regulations and frameworks are increasingly encouraging, if not requiring, companies to halt and reverse nature loss and restore biodiversity, supporting a nature positive future. The new EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive will require disclosure of the impact of larger listed EU businesses on biodiversity and ecosystems from 2024. In the UK, the Biodiversity Net Gain Policy requires developers to deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain (creating or improving natural habitats) with all new developments. Voluntary frameworks are being developed to hold companies accountable for their use of natural assets. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), helps companies assess and account for their nature-based risks and opportunities such as soil erosion and flooding to buildings and restoring natural habitats. The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN), a group of 80+ NGOs and wider partners, has published the first voluntary science-based targets for nature. The SBTN guidance supports businesses to set targets on biodiversity and nature. Examples include targets on water consumption, pollution and deforestation.
Whilst some of the nature-based frameworks and legislation are still voluntary, as with GHG emission reporting and climate target setting, measuring and reporting impacts on nature will no doubt soon be required. So, what practical steps can companies take to restore nature and rebalance biodiversity?
We’ve provided 10 tips to support companies on their nature positive journey.
- Conduct a biodiversity materiality assessment. This helps companies assess the impacts of their operations and supply chains on nature and biodiversity. Once impacts are understood, organisations can take steps to mitigate them. The SBTN provides tools to conduct a materiality assessment and the TNFD has a framework to assess companies’ nature-based risks, opportunities and financial impacts.
- Set targets to restore and prevent biodiversity loss. Examples include water pollution prevention targets, goals to avoid conversion of natural ecosystems, and zero-deforestation commitments. Unilever has committed to achieving a deforestation and conversion-free supply chain, meaning its raw materials such as palm oil, paper, soy and cocoa should no longer be associated with deforested and converted land. The targets relevant to a company will depend on its material nature and biodiversity impacts. Targets must be measurable so progress can be tracked. The SBTN has provided initial guidance to set freshwater and land targets (including partial biodiversity coverage). Ocean targets will be available in 2025.
- Develop a holistic, integrated strategy. Taking a holistic approach to nature strategy embeds it into the wider sustainability strategy and business model. With climate and nature so intrinsically linked, action in one area can support and impact the other’s progress. By integrating nature into a net zero roadmap, organisations can reduce adverse impacts on nature and biodiversity while working towards their climate goals. The SBTN’s ‘Avoid, Reduce, Restore, Regenerate, Transform’ (ARRRT) Action Framework, provides companies with a hierarchical approach to effectively implement a nature strategy.
- Source responsibly. Companies depend on natural resources such as water, timber, copper, coffee, cocoa and energy. But many of these are limited and extracting and using them often carries negative environmental and social impacts. Some businesses are already working to source responsibly, and a biodiversity assessment could highlight other hotspots. Certifications and standards such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for timber and paper, and Fairtrade for foods, can help with assurance. In 2023, 98% of IKEA’s wood was either FSC-certified or recycled.
- Restore habitats. Once a company has reduced its impact on biodiversity, it should look to restore depleted habitats. Reforestation, wetland restoration, regenerative agriculture, marine ecosystems protection and restoration projects are all good examples of habitat restoration. Choosing restoration projects that align with the company’s nature-based risks helps reduce these risks and supports the business case for more projects like it.
- Integrate nature into infrastructure. Invest in green infrastructure, such as green roofs, permeable pavements, wildflower boxes, rooftop beehives and living walls to support biodiversity in urban landscapes. The new Google London headquarters will have a roof garden with a rainwater irrigation system — providing a habitat for protected local species of bats, birds and insects.
- Improve biodiversity data. Nature and biodiversity has approximately 3,000 metrics, unlike its counterpart climate, which has predominately one — tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). Collecting all these nature-based metrics can be challenging. Working with and incentivising suppliers to gather this data down to the farm level will support accurate monitoring of future biodiversity levels and impact measurement.
- Invest in technology that promotes biodiversity. Investing in technology can plug the biodiversity data gap that makes measuring progress against targets challenging. Technologies like agri-tech and nature-tech monitoring systems can help. Chirrup, a biodiversity monitoring solution, uses AI to listen and monitor birds to track and protect the levels of biodiversity in a specific area. Tesco has teamed up with start-up tech innovator AgriSound to monitor insects and bees on its apple orchards, as part of its plan to promote biodiversity in the supply chain.
- Stand up for biodiversity: Engage with stakeholders, including local communities, NGOs and governments, to ensure that biodiversity concerns are acted upon and local knowledge is incorporated into decision-making processes. Sainsbury’s, Nestlé and H&M Group are pushing for mandatory disclosures on nature impacts to be brought in by 2030.
- Give nature a seat at the table. Appoint a member of the board to be nature’s advocate to ensure nature’s voice is heard. Patagonia has gone a step further and made nature its sole shareholder. The founder and former owner, Yvon Chouinard, transferred 98% of the company’s shares to environmental organisation Holdfast Collective. Each year, Holdfast will receive all profits that Patagonia doesn’t need to reinvest — an expected $100 million annually — to protect nature and biodiversity and fight the environmental crisis.
Context supports efforts to develop and implement effective corporate nature positive strategies. If you would like to talk about your organisation’s needs, please get in touch via www.contextsustainability.com or pippa.greenwood@contexteurope.com.
by Context | Jun 4, 2024 | Blog
Part three, the last in our series on microplastics, gives us cause for hope. Don’t miss our previous installments covering the basics about microplastic pollution and ways we’re keeping tabs on the problem.
If you’ve read our previous blogs about microplastics and how groups are keeping tabs on them, let us help you overcome that familiar all-is-lost feeling that the state of things can often bring on. Had Texas A&M graduate student Christine Figgener kept her frustration quiet, she might not have posted the viral video that caused a wave of environmental awareness and inspired the mantra “skip the straw, save a turtle.” One small act of social media posting, and a paper straw sweeps in. Sometime small acts can bring about change. And change is coming to the world of plastics.
One recent scientific headline highlights the work of a pair of scientists at the joint College of Engineering of Florida A&M University and Florida State. They have tried to crack the code on a biodegradable material that acts like plastic and leaves no trace at the end of its life. Their peer-reviewed paper touts the virtues of the new process, a direct synthesis of what’s known as a cyclic carbonate monomer.
“This is considered a breakthrough in material science, as it enables the realization of a true circular economy,” Hoyong Chung, the co-researcher, said in announcing the research.
Chung and lead researcher Arijit Ghorai are working in the research field of sustainable polymers. Sustainable polymers are materials derived from renewable, recycled, and waste carbon resources and their combinations, which at the end of life can be recycled, biodegraded, or composted. Sustainable polymers also exhibit reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle. New sustainable polymers are finding applications in packaging, automotive parts, and 3D printing. The research is making inroads in circularity and providing alternatives to virgin plastics.
Recycling products isn’t a new idea, but recycling waste that’s clogging waterways is gaining ground. Sungai Watch and Indosole announced a collaboration to take old flipflops littering Indonesia and repurpose them into new sandals. Sungai Watch began its mission in 2020 to protect and restore Indonesia’s rivers and design simple capture systems to do so. The nonprofit’s single mission is to stop plastic from going into the ocean. Old flipflops had started to pile up when they hatched the partnership with Indosole to repurpose them.
Within the plastics recycling community in the U.S., there’s momentum building to take advantage of plastic waste’s attention-grabbing moment. At the same time that news outlets are putting retail waste management to the test, recyclers see changes on the horizon. At their annual gathering this spring, plastic recyclers heard and discussed reasons for optimism.
Data may help. Experts expect data requirements about end markets, recycled content, mass balance, bale audits, and other applications will become more common as the need for accountability rises. On opening day, one panelist offered this to his colleagues: “The answer lies within everybody here thinking about what you can do differently, how you can innovate, how you can get started.” We hope our microplastic series stimulates the continued conversation. Thanks for reading.
by Sarah Walkley | May 30, 2024 | Blog
We are replacing the things we buy more quickly than ever before. UK households buy a new mobile phone on average every one to two years. In 2021, we also bought 60% more clothing than 15 years earlier, but kept items for only half as long. Around one in five of us buys new clothes every two weeks. This has resulted in vast amounts of waste (see our previous blog on How did we become so wasteful?).
Sometimes, this is because we have bought cheap goods that have fallen apart quickly. Other times, items are not designed to be reparable, or the manufacturer has decided to no longer support a particular model or piece of software (known as ‘planned obsolescence’).
But much of the time, we simply want the newest version.
Four in 10 Germans said that they changed their phone within three years, because they wanted a better device. A further 28% changed phones because their provider offered them an upgrade. Their old phone still worked perfectly well.
We are encouraged to see the latest version as significantly better than what we currently have, even if the improvements are marginal. This is known as ‘psychological obsolescence’. Christine Frederick first suggested the concept back in 1928 in her book Selling Mrs Consumer. She identified three reasons to upgrade, with psychological obsolescence being the ultimate reason:
The technical phase. Leaps in technology mean that new products are technically superior to their predecessors. As a result, we swapped vinyl records for CDs and are now replacing petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles.
The practical phase. Two products are integrated into one, making the new product more convenient, e.g. increasing storage capacity on a smartphone means we no longer need a separate iPod. But it can also mean things are less repairable. We end up having to refit an entire kitchen because an integrated cooker, dishwasher or fridge has failed.
The aesthetic phase. There are few technical or practical differences between the old or the latest version; it is simply a matter of styling. We are encouraged to discard the previous version, because the new one is more ‘beautiful’ or is in this year’s colour. This is the heart of psychological obsolescence.
Psychological obsolescence affects some types of products more than others, such as clothing, small electricals and homewares.
We hold on to other products for longer. Luxury goods are prized as ‘investments’. We perceive them as special and worth looking after, because we have had to save up for them. We cannot afford to replace them quickly. Meanwhile, ‘workhorse’ products are valued for their functionality. Few people change their lawnmower or vacuum cleaner regularly because they want the latest style or colour.
The trend towards psychological obsolescence started in the car industry, with manufacturers releasing regular ‘facelifts’ to encourage consumers to buy a new vehicle. It was abundantly clear to your neighbours if the car parked outside your house was not the latest version.
However, the car industry has also shown us an alternative approach. The Volkswagen Beetle and the Mini have become so iconic that they have been redesigned only once in their lifetime. They are desirable for their classic looks. They shifted from being replaceable to ‘investments’.
The music industry may be taking a similar direction, with fans returning to vinyl for the music that they want to listen to again and again — partly because of the warmer sound which is closer to the live experience. Though still far behind streaming revenues, US sales of vinyl outstripped CDs for the first time in almost four decades in 2022 and accounted for over 70% of physical music sales the following year.
To reduce waste and reverse the trend towards ever shorter product lifecycles, more products need to make this shift. As consumers, according to Toronto Metropolitan University’s Lloyd Alter, we have to learn to differentiate between design, which offers us meaningful change, and style, which provides only the illusion of change, even though it can be tough to resist fashion trends. For brands, the shift could give rise to a design classic, unlocking premium prices and lifetime customer loyalty.
by Context | May 28, 2024 | Blog
In part two of our three-part series on microplastics, we take a look at how we are tracking their spread and efforts to stem the tide. Part one described our current understanding of the problem. Our final installment will look at hopeful solutions.
Many organizations are casting a wide net to grapple with the growing microplastics problem (see our previous post “Where Our Understanding Lies”). Many types of organizations, trade groups, consultants, and government agencies are keeping tabs on plastic production and proliferation. Their missions vary somewhat, but their overarching goals are to understand and lessen the impacts on people and the planet.
The Global Partnership on Plastic Pollution and Marine Litter (GPML) represents groups worldwide trying to slow the proliferation of plastic pollution. The partnership operates under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). In 2023, GPML published “Turning Off the Tap,” a report that covers the causes of pollution, not just the symptoms. It also advocates for change.
Because stemming the production and uses of plastics has economic repercussions, GPML calls for a “systems change scenario” that combines reducing the spread of plastic waste while transforming the market to a more circular model. That sentiment is echoed by The Pew Charitable Trust’s review of the state of plastic in the 2020 report “Breaking the Plastic Wave,” produced with SYSTEMIQ, a company collaborating on projects for environmental system change.
System change scenarios are just as they sound: creating multiple pathways to pivot away from business as usual. For plastic, they include:
- Increased recycling
- Investing in biodegradable products
- Reducing unnecessary packaging
- Developing ways to covert plastics to other uses
- Curbing the international waste trade
- Finding substitutes with fewer downsides
Those changes require shifts in thinking, by investors, manufacturers, and consumers. Progress will require moving from primarily a linear economy of single-use plastic to multiple pathways of elimination, reduction, and innovative reuses. Many actors will need to make commitments for success.
Work has started to build global buy-in for change. In a historic decision in March 2022, all 193 UN Member States voted at the fifth UN Environment Assembly to end plastic pollution. This year, critical negotiations about the future of plastic pollution are in motion. A primary objective is to form a legally binding global agreement by the end of 2024 to stop plastic pollution.
A hinderance remains a lack of data about plastic production, migration, and disposal. One stopgap that has emerged recently may help. NOAA’s Marine Microplastics Database is one of the newest databases for sharing knowledge about microplastic pollution in water around the world. A user application provides data on the occurrence, distribution, and quality of global microplastics and is the repository of multiple datasets from bodies of water near every continent. NOAA’s map of microplastic concentrations gives new meaning to “seeing is believing.”
In our last post in this series, we’ll focus on how necessity fuels invention, a truism that extends to microplastics.
